The Pioneers’ New Testament

Most people would be rather thoroughly baffled if they were asked, “Have you been born?” How else would one have become a sentient being? The evidence is obvious.
It should be deemed equally silly to raise the same question about having been “born again”, as if that designation were an earned – or honorary – degree, or some celestial merit-badge, which produced no observable evidence in one’s life.

Those who demand such a “degree” would probably be amazed – perhaps even incredulous – to learn that their favorite “qualification” appears only four times in the entire New Testament, and that their most loudly trumpeted “proof-text”, Jn.3:3,7, is NOT among them! As is our custom, let’s look at the evidence.
By far the majority of references to birth, in any form, refer simply to the physical event of the arrival of a baby. The same word is traditionally translated “beget” if it refers to a father, “conceive, bear, deliver, or bring forth” if it refers to a mother, and “born” if to a child.
The word appears in many variant forms – primarily the verb, gennao, but also nouns genesis (origin, source, descent), genEma (produce, or fruit), genos (stock, or kin), genna (offspring, race, family), gennEma (that which is born), and genetE (an adverb, “by, from, or since birth). The lexicons make very little distinction, and the usage makes even less.

New Testament appearances relating to other than the physical process of birth include references to one’s origin (Jn.1:13, 8:41, 9:2, Ac.2:8, 22:3, 28). Note especially Jn.9:34, where it was the Pharisees who spoke of being “born in sin”: JESUS NEVER SAID THAT ABOUT ANYBODY!!! Also included are kinship or nationality (usually using genos) (Ac.4:6, 4:36, 7:13, 7:19, 13:26, 18:2, 18:24; Mk.7:26, Gal.1:14, Phil 3:5, II Cor.11:26), and “fruit or harvest”, as in Jesus’ reference to “the fruit of the vine” (Mt.26:29, Mk.14:25, Lk.22:18) , and in the parable of the rich fool (Lk.12:18). Interestingly, gennEma, the form used on these latter occasions, is the same word used by both John the Baptist and Jesus in critiquing their opponents as a “generation [offspring] of vipers”, as well as Paul’s description of a faithful life as “the fruit of justice [“righteousness”] (II Cor.9:10).

The verb gennao also reaches beyond reference to physical birth or provenance. It appears in the statement from heaven, quoted from the coronation Psalm 2:7 in Heb.1:5 and 5:5, as well as Ac.13:33, although it was not used in either of the events to which those passages refer – Jesus’ baptism by John or his transfiguration: an interesting discrepancy that could bear further study, except that any analysis would necessarily have to be entirely conjecture.
Paul also uses it of his having been the messenger who enabled both the Corinthian church (I Cor.4:15) and Philemon (Phm.10) to learn and choose faithfulness.

These latter uses of gennao serve as a transition to the understanding of birth as becoming a participant in a new and different life. Please also refer in this regard to #35, 96, 97, 134, 135, 174.
John’s choice of words in describing a person who has chosen faithfulness is “born of [from] God.” He asserts that “Everyone who does justice [righteousness – see #3] is born from him” (I Jn.2:29), although it is unclear whether the grammatical reference of autou (him) is “Father” or “Son”.
In I Jn. 3:9, both instances represent having been “born of God” as enabling one to leave his life of shortcoming [failure, “sin”] , and then John goes on to point out quite bluntly the need to discern between “God’s children” and “the devil’s children”. (You will not find in the New Testament the popular modern affirmation that “all people are the children of God”!)   John goes on to explain (4:7) “everyone who keeps on loving, has been born from God”, (5:1) “Everyone who keeps trusting that Jesus is the Anointed One has been born from God”, and (5:4) “Everyone that has been born from God is (in the process of) conquering the world!” He then concludes (5:18) “We know that anyone who has been born from God does not keep on (living in) failure: but the one [One?] born from God continually keeps him [some MSS have “guards himself”], and the evil one does not touch him.” Clearly, John is referring to something far beyond physical birth.
These statements in his letter cast light on his Gospel account, and also receive light from it. Jesus’ much-quoted statement to Nicodemus in Jn.3:3,7 has been poorly translated. Please see the grammatical comments in Translation Notes (free download). Here, we are simply concerned with the vocabulary – specifically, the adverb anOthen, which appears in both places. The adverb, classically, was translated “from above, from on high, or from the gods” (L/S). It is a description of provenance, not time or counting. L/S notes that only in the New Testament was it translated “anew, afresh, over again”. This has to have been a theological, not a linguistic choice. It is clear from John’s letter that he understood Jesus to be saying “born from God.”

Peter is the only one to use the word anagennao, literally “born / begotten again.” In I Pet.1:3, the subject is “God”, the object is “us”, the means by which it is effected is Jesus’ resurrection, and the result is our being included in his inheritance. In 1:23, he reminds his readers that this new life is from an “imperishable source”, and is characterized, as John also insisted, by genuine love of the brethren.

There is one other word, paliggenesia, also occurring only twice, and traditionally translated “regeneration”, that may be relevant to this conversation. As you can see by comparing the words, it is marginally related to the others, but with a different prefix. Trench makes an effort to distinguish it from the others, adding anakainOsis to the mix, although that word is exclusively translated “renewal.”
This is not much help, since he is making a complex theological and liturgical argument out of active and passive, progressive and accomplished ideas, which is a useful tool in understanding verbs, but these words are both nouns , and as such have neither tense nor voice. Although paliggenesia and anakainOsis may be similar, they could not possibly be synonyms, or they would not be used together in Tit.3:5. Trench is fond of referencing the “Church Fathers” as a tool of interpretation, forgetting that they wrote a century or more after the Biblical accounts, and in the context of early efforts to codify “doctrines”and define and fight “heresies”.
Paliggenesia is very common in classical literature. The Stoic philosophers made frequent reference to a cyclical renewal of the cosmos, after destruction by fire or flood. Some also included the notion of reincarnation or the transmigration of “souls” in this process. The word was also used of a nation or a person returning from exile or shame, or, medically, of either recovery from a disease or the recurrence of a tumor! It appears only twice in the New Testament – used once by Jesus, in reference to the consummation of his Kingdom (Mt.19:28), and once in Paul’s letter to Titus (3:5), where (vv.4-6) he could be speaking of either baptism or the gift of the Holy Spirit – or both.

In connection with baptism, resurrection is a much more common figure than birth (see #35), with the act of baptism serving as a symbol of the disciple’s deliberate identification with Jesus’ own burial and resurrection, and that individual’s consequent transformation of life. Romans 6:4 calls it “newness of life”. In other places, “a new creation” (II Cor.5:17, Gal.6:15), “the new man” (Eph.2:15, 4:24; Col.3:10) and other figures convey similar ideas.
Please refer again to the other previous studies listed above.
Whatever you choose to call it, we would all do well to follow the example of the whole New Testament, focusing less on demanding a “birth certificate”, and more on the development of a LIFE that rightly represents and honors its Giver!

Here is yet another word, plentiful in song and sermon, but only quite rarely used in the New Testament of anything but ordinary physical cleanliness. An English reference to “washing” is used for no less than ten different Greek words, of which the most common are quite readily distinguishable, and only one (in three forms) has even limited direct reference to “spiritual” cleansing. Let’s look at the evidence.
One of them can be disposed of very quickly. Brecho, usually translated “rain” (Mt.5:45, Lk.17:29, Jas.5:17, Rv.11:6), is rendered “wash” only twice (Lk.7:38, 44), where it is used of tears.

The three primary root words, classically, occupied simple but specific domains.
Louo, with its related noun loutron and its prefixed form apolouo, refers to bathing: washing one’s entire body. Sometimes, but not always, there is an accompanying sense of ritual purification.
Nipto (historically nizo) and its prefixed form in the middle voice, aponiptomai, while it also occasionally implied purification, more frequently intended simply washing one’s hands or feet. In both LXX and New Testament accounts, the offering of water for washing the feet of a guest was a normal expectation of hospitality (Gen.18:4, 19:2, 24:32; Lk.7:44, I Tim.5:10, Jn.13). This word is not used of bathing.
Pluno and its prefixed form apopluno, appearing only once each in the New Testament but frequently in the LXX, refers to the washing of garments or other inanimate objects: mandatory purification under the Law, but except for two occurrences (Lk.5:2 and Rv.7:14), absent from the New Testament writings. L/S notes that it would have been applied to people only with derogatory overtones. It could also imply “worn out” or “threadbare”, as by many washings of a garment.
These divisions fit very well with the New Testament appearances of the words, although there are several marked deviations in the LXX.
Both louo and nipto, for example, are used in Jesus’ conversation with Peter in John 13, where references to the washing of feet consistently employs nipto, but Jesus’ word to Peter that a person who has had a bath (louo) only needs his feet washed (nipto) makes a clear distinction. Washing one’s face (Mt.6:17 and probably Jn.9:7,11), hands (Mt.15:12, Mk.7:3) and feet (Jn.13:6, 8, 10, 12, 14, and I Tim.5:10) are all expressed with nipto, whereas bathing the body (louo) is obvious in Jn.13:10, Ac.9:37, 16:33, and Heb.10:22,23 (where it could also reference baptism). Interestingly, Peter (II Pet.2:22) even uses it of a pig!

Please note that none of these, except the Hebrews reference (to which we will return) refers to anything but a simple, physical act of cleansing. Different vocabulary is usually employed when more-than-ordinary cleansing is intended, for which please consult #65.
Of the three prefixed forms, aponiptomai describes Pilate’s ostentatious “washing his hands” of the sordid affair of Jesus’ lynching (Mt.27:24) – which Bauer attributes to Jewish, rather than Roman culture as a gesture of innocence.  Apopluno is used for the washing of fishing nets (Lk.5:2). Only apolouo carries any “spiritual” connotation (Ac.22:16 and I Cor.6:11), as does loutron in Eph.5:26 and Titus 3:5, and the Heb.10:22 use of louo.

This latter group is often connected with baptism. Interestingly, baptizo (v) and baptismos (n), although usually translated “baptize” or “baptism”, are also rarely rendered “wash” : the verb twice (Mk.7:4 and Lk.11:38) – against 74x “baptize” – and the noun three times (Mk.7:4, 8; Heb.9:10). In each of these, the reference clearly is not symbolic of commitment to Jesus’ lordship.
The more common form for “baptism” is baptisma (22x). You can find a more detailed treatment of baptism in chapter 10 of Citizens of the Kingdom. (free download.)
Inexplicably, Bauer connects this word with Jewish ritual washings, despite the fact that it occurs only twice in the LXX: once of Naaman the Syrian in the Jordan (II Ki 5:14) and once where Isaiah (21:4) speaks of being “overwhelmed” by transgressions: neither of which makes any reference to Jewish ceremony. The above references to Mark and Luke may provide a tenuous connection, but certainly no strong evidence.

By way of contrast, Paul, in the Ac.22:16 passage cited above, quotes Ananias as directly connecting his baptism (baptisai) with the “washing away” (apolousai) of his shortcomings [“sins”] (#141) by “calling upon the name of Jesus”. All of the verbs here are aorist tenses, which indicate a single, definitive act. Likewise, in I Cor.6:11, “washed” (apelousasthe), “made holy” (hEgiasthEte), and “made just” (edikaiothEte) are all aorist passive verbs. All of this, therefore, is assumed to have taken place upon the occasion of one’s baptism!
In Eph.5:26, a similar transformation is described as having taken place for the church as a whole – but this time, the agent (dative case) is not only “washing with water” but also “the word” (see #66). The verbs, however, are still aorist. We are dealing with accomplished fact here, not a process, which we saw to be the case with “salvation” (#5). To Titus (3:5), Paul associates “washing” with “rebirth [regeneration]” – the beginning of one’s life in Christ.

This is not, however, to contradict Jesus’ statement already noted in Jn.13, that even those who have had a bath will still need to wash from their feet the residue from walking through a world that has not submitted to his cleansing. But that realization needs to be held in balance with Heb.10:22, as we “approach him with full confidence”! Here, the cleansing of having been “sprinkled” (rherhantismenoi) and thereby cleansed “from consciousness of evil”, as well as “washed” (leloumenoi) are perfect participles – past events with present consequences! (Please see #6, 7, 14, and 128). Rhantizo, a very common word in the LXX describing purification rites, appears only in the letter to the Hebrews in summaries of those processes (9:13,19, 21 and 12:24) and a single reference in I Pet.1:2, where the reference is also to purification.

And here, with only three references (I Pet.1:2, Rv.1:5, and Rv.7:14), one can finally discover a source for all the noise about being “washed in blood”. (Peter only refers to a ceremonial “sprinkling”.)
In Rv.1:5, the actor is Jesus (not people); and the “washing” appears fifth on a list of six descriptions of the accomplishments of the Lord Jesus. In Rv.7:14, the reference is in a highly allegorical description of a contingent of martyrs having “washed their robes.” (And by the way, a “fountain / well” – pEgE – same word – is simply a natural source of water in Jas.3:11,12; Rv.7:17, 8:10, 14:7, 16:4, 21:6; Jn.4:6, 14; II Pet.2:17. The only exception is the Mk.5:29 reference to the healing of the woman who had a hemorrhage – and nobody “washes” in that!)
All the common rhetoric, verbal or musical, is seriously out of balance!

Where is the proclamation (also in Rv.1:5) of Jesus as “the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth, who loves us”? Where is the announcement that he has “made(of) us a kingdom of priests to God his Father”? All of these have multiple New Testament references, and should therefore have enormous influence upon the life of his people!

Please understand that this is not to ignore or disparage either the “shedding of his blood” (see previous post) or being “washed” with it  as an operative factor in the process – whether that phrase is taken as a reference to physical blood, to Jesus’ life, his humanity, or any other part of his activity during or after his years on the earth. It is simply a plea that those who claim to represent our Lord and King pay proportionate attention to aspects of his life, teaching, example, and accomplishments that are much more frequently described and explained in Scripture,and therefore equally, if not more essential to the life and health of his Body.

May we represent him faithfully!

There are few concepts that have generated as much heated rhetoric, from all sides of purported “Christian teaching”, as has the simple word haima, “blood.”

Classically (L/S), it referred to the blood circulating in the bodies of men and beasts, to anything resembling blood, such as dye, wine, or other red liquid; and to courage or spirit, as opposed to “spiritless or pale.” Secondarily, it became an euphemism for murder or other violence (as in “bloodshed”), a corpse, or revenge; and also frequently referred to kinship – “blood relationship” – or to simple humanity – “flesh and blood”. Bauer also notes its use as a synonym for “life”, and Thayer adds “one’s generation or origin” or “punishment for bloodshed.” Lexically, there is no justification, in any direction, for the multitude of theological constructs with which (presumably) well-meaning folks try to clobber each other!

Of the 99 appearances of haima in the New Testament, 14 are clearly references to the physical substance. Fourteen describe violence or murder, and 6 deal with responsibility for another’s violent death. Twelve, in the letter to the Hebrews, relate to the ancient ritual sacrifices of the Jewish Law (and their woeful inadequacy), and three (Ac.15:20, 29; 21:25) to the pagan equivalent. That is nearly half of the usage!
These ideas also account for most of the LXX uses: heavily weighted toward wars and vengeance (both personal and national) in all the historical books, and toward offerings and sacrifices in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. It is these latter two (Lev.7:27 and 17:10-14, and Dt.12:23) where a significant explanation is given: one which is absent in the classical lexicons, but crucial to accurate understanding. The writer (who says he is quoting God’s directives) emphasizes the absolute prohibition of any consumption of blood (which was common in pagan rites – see Ac.15) on the grounds that “the life of every creature is in its blood”. Many times, the “taking of life” and the “shedding of blood” are used synonymously. And since all life belongs exclusively to God who gave it, even the blood of legitimately hunted game is to be avoided. Therefore, it should be borne in mind continually that any occurrence of the word “blood” MAY be a reference to life, rather than, or in addition to, actual physical blood.
Exactly how this relates to Jesus’ enigmatic statement quoted in Jn.6:53-56 is not clear, but I am sure that (1) there is a connection, and that (2) it is as obscure to us as it was to the original listeners (who were just more honest about their confusion!)

Although the gospel uses of haima also refer primarily either to violence (Mt.23:30, 32; Mt. 27:4,6,8; Lk.11:50, 51) or to responsibility for it (Mt.27:24,25; Lk.13:1), and they also include physical conditions (Mk.5:25,29; Lk.8:43,44; Lk.22:44; Jn.19:34), two entirely different ideas are also introduced. In Mt.16:17 and Jn.1:13, also picked up by Paul in I Cor.15:50, Gal.1:6, and Eph.6:2, (all but the John reference accompanied by “flesh”), the intent is simple humanity. The same phrase in Heb.2:14 emphasizes kinship – a critical element in Jesus’ identification with our human condition.
The only place where Jesus speaks of his own blood (beside the John reference above) is Mt.26:28 and its parallels in Mk.14:24 and Luke 22:20, where he relates it to the establishment of the New Covenant. This connection is explained in greater detail in Heb.9:20, 10:20, and 13:20, where (especially in chapter 9) the writer connects the idea of “covenant” to a legal will (see #79,80), which takes effect only upon the death of the testator. Please note also that although Matthew added “for the removal of failures [trad.: forgiveness of sins]” to the concept of covenant, neither Mark nor Luke quotes Jesus as making any such connection to “debt”, “sin”, “guilt”, “forgiveness”, or any of the other popular buzz-words, nor does the expanded treatise in Hebrews.

The twelve references in Acts cover a considerable spectrum as well. Ac.5:28 and 18:6 reprise the idea of responsibility, as does 20:26 with a slightly different (probably not physical) slant. Ac.22:20 refers to the stoning of Stephen, which is definitely physical, as is the mention of the purchased field in 1:19, while 15:20, 29 and 21:25 deal with pagan sacrifice. Paul’s sermon in Athens (17:26) highlights the kinship of common humanity. Only his message to the Ephesian elders (20:28) specifically mentions Jesus’ blood [life? violent death? humanity?] as having periepoiesato – traditionally “purchased” – the church for himself. That translation has to have been a “doctrinal” choice, since the word is classically defined (L/S) as “kept safe, preserved; procure secure; acquire, gain possession of”. Could this erroneous translation be the source of the otherwise undocumented notion of Jesus having satisfied some sort of a “debt”?
I do not feel competent to exegete the references to Joel’s prophecy (Ac.2:19,20), since my field of study is Greek, not Hebrew.

In contrast, with the exception of the few passages already noted referring to simple humanity (I Cor.15:50, Gal.1:6, Eph.6:12) and the Old Testament quote in Rom.3:15, Paul’s epistles uniformly reference “the blood of Christ” or “his blood”, although not nearly as frequently as the purveyors of “doctrine” would like you to believe. I was able to find haima used only nine times in that way in his writing, and although one, Col.1:20, specifically makes reference to the cross, the others are equally likely to intend the synonymous alternatives of life, kinship, or humanity explored above. Or perhaps (more likely) all of these figure into the picture, because the emphasis in each instance is not on the “substance” in question, but rather upon its effect.

Consider: (and please refer to the indicated studies)
Rom.3:25 – traditionally “propitiation” (see #69 and #151)
Rom.5:19 – we are “made just” (#3) by his blood (see also “transformation,” #97)
I Cor.10:16 – sharing (koinonia – #8) in the Body and Blood of Christ
I Cor.11:25 – Jesus’ statement regarding the New Covenant (#80)
I Cor.11:27 – the danger of not perceiving the Body of Christ (#84)
Eph.1:7 – redemption (#16) also in Col.1:14, and I Pet.1:18-19, where it is translated “ransomed”
Eph.2:13 – previously alienated people are brought near,
Col.1:20 – making peace among former enemies (#70)

Every one of these is hugely more practical than most, if not all, of the common theological rhetoric about “the blood of Jesus” – as well as being more Scriptural!

Only the letter to the Hebrews relates the coming, life, and death of Jesus to the sacrificial system of the old covenant – and the burden of its entire narrative is to point out the abject failure of that system to produce the results for which it was designed, and to illustrate the absolute supremacy of the Lord Jesus! The detailed descriptions in Heb.9:7, 12,13,18,19,21,25; 10:4; 11:28; 12:24; 13:11 of the old ways, and their separation of “ordinary people” from the presence of God – an idea much more akin to pagan rituals – are in sharp contrast to the accomplishment of the Lord himself, who by offering his own “blood” [life? violent death? humanity?]
Heb.9:12 – secured eternal redemption (#61)
Heb.10:19 – allowed his people to enter the holiest place (#32)
Heb.13:12 – made all his people “holy” (#3,32)

Notice that it was “UNDER THE LAW” (the phrase that self-styled “evangelists” consistently omit) that “without pouring out blood, deliverance doesn’t happen.” (Heb.9:22), and that the oft-repeated message of the entire letter is that the law has been superseded!

Peter (I Pet.1:2) and John (I Jn.1:7, Rv.1:5) are the only ones who specifically connect the idea of “cleansing” with haima, and only in those three settings. How, then, did that idea become so central in so-called “gospel” singing and preaching, in spite of the fact that Jesus never said it? And why is it assumed that none of the other senses of the word are equally appropriate here? As elsewhere, the life, kinship, and humanity of Jesus factor equally into that process.

In no instance does any New Testament writer represent “blood” – whether of Jesus or anyone/anything else – as some sort of magical potion to be dispensed, either naturally or supernaturally, for the correction of physical, moral, or spiritual ills. They speak consistently of the kinship, with the Lord and with one another, graciously provided for those who joyfully submit to his sovereignty.

Thanks be to God!

Because it has had a profound influence on my choice to translate many New Testament passages in a manner distinctly different from most other versions – notably more practical (active) and less theoretical – I have often been asked to write a posting detailing some of the grammatical implications of these two common prepositions and the cases of their objects.
I have frequently confessed to being a “language junkie”. I love the interplay of language and culture and the ways people have developed to express ideas and experiences that are important to them.
So if you “hate grammar”, you can skip this one – but in doing so, you will sacrifice a very significant key to understanding the New Testament text.

As noted in the Appendix to my Translation Notes (available as another free download from the home page), many prepositions in the Greek language have multiple meanings or implications which vary according to the case of their object (See “Basic uses of Cases” and “Prepositions”, or any comprehensive lexicon). But there are some, eis and en among them, which always require the same form for their object: the former is accompanied only by an accusative object, and the latter a dative.
If you want a technical exposition of the development of cases, the grammar by A.T. Robertson will take you all the way back to Sanskrit, but that is beyond the scope of this essay. For our purpose, it is sufficient to recognize that the dative case is basically static, and the accusative is active.

The dative case (with or without prepositions) may express location in time or place – historically it was treated as a separate case, called locative, but with the same forms – (the star – Mt.2:2 – was “in” the east, and the shepherds were “in” the field – Lk.2:8). It may describe prevailing circumstances, in which case it is called circumstantial (as in I Thes.5:18, “IN everything give thanks” – the more commonly quoted “FOR everything” would require eis and an accusative object!). The means or agency by which anything occurs, labeled instrumental (Phil.4:6, “in prayer”), and various states of feeling (Rom.12:12 expresses this as a dative with no preposition). A more detailed survey of these can be found in L/S.
En is usually rendered “in” or “within” if the object is singular, but would be more accurately represented by “among” when the object is plural. Please see #142 regarding the singular and plural forms of “you”, which are seldom adequately distinguished. THIS IS VITAL to proper understanding.

But even in simple narrative, there is a difference. For example, the scheming of the scribes (Mt.3:9, 9:3, Mk.2:28, Lk.3:8) was not individual, “within themselves”, but corporate “among themselves.” But the unjust steward in the parable (Lk.16:3) hatched his nefarious idea “in” himself. A similar discrepancy appears in the failure to realize that Jesus’ promise is to dwell among his people (the “you” is plural), not “inside of” individuals.

The accusative case, on the other hand, always accompanies eis, which is uniformly active. It appears with verbs of motion, or in constructions of purpose or cause (L/S). This realization should affect the translation of any concepts with which it is associated. Unfortunately, the doctrinal presuppositions of most (hired) “official” translators have constrained them to ignore the obvious fact that Jesus calls people, NOT to a static (dative) “belief in” him – a purely private assent to some sort of idea or narrative – but to active faithfulness [loyalty] toward (eis) him!
Jesus directed his disciples to baptize their new recruits INTO (eis) the Name [identity – see #24] of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Mt.28:19).
Paul reminded the Roman brethren (6:3) that baptism INTO (eis) Christ was also INTO his death, and ultimately, his resurrection.
Jesus himself consistently used eis, not en, in his conversation with Martha (Jn.11:25-26). Usually glibly (and incorrectly) quoted almost as if it were a charm by advocates of “doctrine” [“belief”] as a means of salvation – a concept totally absent from the New Testament – “he that believes in me”, a more accurate rendition would be “the one who is faithful [loyal] to [toward] me….”
(Please see study #1 for a proper understanding of pisteuo). “Faithfulness”, biblically, is NEVER a matter of intellectual assent, but rather of active loyalty. Forms of pisteuo almost exclusively are followed with a phrase introduced by eis. Likewise, the object is uniformly a person or a cause, never merely an idea or formula.
Eis is also frequently used in purpose constructions, where it may also be translated “for”, as in Mt.24:14, 26:13; Lk.2:34, 9:3; Jn.1:7; Ac.13:2, etc. An expression of purpose necessarily involves action, as does the idea of cause (Jn.12:27, Rom.1:5, 4:5, 8:28; Gal.3:6, 5:13, and many others).

This is not by any means to suggest that the use of eis or en implies that one is superior or inferior to the other: simply that they are different, and that the distinction is important.
In Col.1:13, Paul speaks of our having been transported into (eis) the Kingdom of the Son of God, but in Phil.3:9, expresses his desire to “be found in (en) him…”
In Rom.6:3, baptism is described as being into (eis) Christ Jesus, and its result is that we might henceforth “walk[live] in (en)” a completely new life.

“En Christo” – one of Paul’s apparent favorite phrases – (a quick count found it at least 89x) – describes the environment – the constant condition – in which faithful disciples live and function. It is the air we breathe, the universe we inhabit.
“Eis”, besides representing our initial entrance into that universe, describes the purpose to which and for which we are called and given life.

For any serious student of the New Testament, even if he does not have the immediate opportunity to explore the Greek language academically (and not all academic courses delve deeply into the implications of grammatical structure), an interlinear New Testament (make sure it uses the latest manuscript research!) , which will enable the identification of specific words, and an analytical Greek lexicon, which identifies the grammatical form of every word, would be a very worthwhile investment.

When encountering other prepositions, it is likewise important to be aware of the cases of their respective objects. Please refer to the chart in the Appendix, or to any comprehensive lexicon. For example, epi is translated “over, on top of, above” if its object is genitive, “by, beside, at, on” if it is dative, and “toward, against” if it is accusative.
Pros with the genitive indicates “from”, with the dative “near, beside”, and with accusative “toward.”
There IS a difference, and it needs to be reflected responsibly, if one is to translate or to understand accurately.

To the folks who requested this explanation, I hope it helps. Please feel free to ask for clarification or to add any insight I may have missed.
May we all find our way, in (en) the service of our King, into (eis) greater faithfulness!

For a word that appears in the New Testament only eight times, despite being used for two different Greek words, the idea of a yoke receives a surprising amount of attention – most of which centers around a syrupy, less-than-practical interpretation of Jesus’ gracious invitation in Mt.11:29-30. The word is found more commonly in the LXX, but in both cases, it is used in a much narrower sense than a classical understanding of either original term would suggest.

The words in the text are quite similar. Zeugos, (L/S: “a pair of anything; a team of animals; a carriage or chariot drawn by a “yoke” of beasts; or a married couple”), is used exclusively of animals – draft or sacrificial – in both the New Testament (Lk.2:24, 14:19) and the LXX (10x).

Its corresponding verb, zeugnumi (L/S: “to harness, saddle or bridle; to fasten securely; to join together – as in setting a broken bone; to join in wedlock; to join opposite banks of a body of water with a bridge; to pair or match gladiators; to join an issue at law”), does not appear at all in the New Testament, and of its seven uses in the LXX, six refer simply to hitching up a chariot or wagon, and one to an assassin wearing a sword.

Two words, each appearing twice, prefixed with “sun” (together), are related to zeugos:
suzeugnumi, a passive verb, in Ezk.1:11 and 23, describes the joining together of the wings of the creatures in the prophet’s vision, and
suzeugnuo, the active form, is the choice in Jesus’ description of marriage,as “what God hath joined together” (Mt.19:6, Mk.10:9).

Differing by only a single letter, zugos (L/S: “the yoke of a plow or carriage; thwarts or benches joining opposite sides of a ship; the panels of a door; the beam of a balance [scales]; a pair of persons; a rank or line of soldiers; and metaphorically, the yoke of slavery”) appears in the New Testament as a reference to bondage or slavery three times (Ac.15:10, Gal.5:1, I Tim.6:1), and once to a balance [scale] (Rv.6:5), in addition to Jesus’ offer noted above in Mt.11. LXX uses are divided among references to bondage (12x), to deliverance from bondage – a “broken yoke”– (13x), to just or unjust balances [weights] (14x), and to rebellious refusal to serve (2x).
The related verb, zugoo (L/S: “to yoke or join together, to bring under a yoke, to subdue”) is completely absent from the New Testament, although the idea is present in its noun form in the Ac.15 reference, where the folks at the Jerusalem Conference are admonished NOT to inflict the bondage of the Jewish Law upon Gentile converts, and Paul’s similar urging of the brethren in Galatia NOT to return to the legalism from which Christ had set them free. The verb appears only twice in the LXX, in both instances referring to careful craftsmanship (I Ki.7:43 and Ezk.41:26).

Zugos is also found in two compound words, each used only a single time in the New Testament:
suzugos (the prefix is from the pronoun sun – “with” or “together”) may be Paul’s style of addressing a fellow-servant of the Lord, or may be a proper name. Scholars do not seem to be sure. The request that the addressee help to make peace in a disagreement between two faithful sisters could fit either understanding of Phil.4:3. Here, too, L/S offers much more (classical) variety: “to draw together in a yoke; a syzygy of two stars (where one rises as the other sets), joining or uniting, one’s comrade, wife, or brother; or a gladiator’s adversary!”
Heterozugeo (L/S: “to draw unequally, to be in an unequal partnership, a yoke of animals of diverse kind”) is found only in Paul’s warning (II Cor.6:14) against being “unequally yoked with the unfaithful”. This has usually been interpreted as referring to marriage – which may be correct – although it is also good advice in business or other relationships. Note that the apostle is not advocating avoidance of the uncommitted: that would preclude introducing them to the Kingdom. But sharing a “yoke” implies mutuality of some depth, and requires unity of purpose.
The noun form, heterozugos, appears once in the LXX (Lv.19:19), where it prohibits the cross-breeding of cattle. (I wonder to what extent that is still observed?)

Have you noticed, in all these references, that Jesus himself never spoke of a “yoke” in a context of bondage? Or even a “broken” one, as symbolic of deliverance?
Although the Old Covenant spoke repeatedly of a yoke as a synonym for slavery to a conqueror, and its “breaking” as a figure of deliverance from that bondage, the plain fact is, in a society that functions on animal-power, without a yoke, absolutely no work can be accomplished! A field is neither plowed, planted, nor harvested; a cart, wagon, or other conveyance does not move, without a yoke and team.

The beauty of Jesus’ invitation to take on his own yoke, in order that we share in the work of his Kingdom, is that he chooses, personally, to share the yoke with the willing disciple!
Please refer to the treatment of this subject in the study of “rest” #77.
A yoke enables two draft animals to work together, and share the load. Well-made and properly adjusted to the strength and ability of each animal, it enables the “novice” to learn from the well-trained and experienced lead animal, in order that both may become more productive!
What an incredible privilege, to work with the Lord of Glory on such a team!

Jesus has created an entirely new paradigm, transforming a symbol of bondage to oppressors into one of learning to function at his side in “the glorious liberty of the sons of God”!
And who could be a better, kinder, more highly skilled teacher than “the Firstborn” among those “many brethren”?
May we eagerly share his yoke, in thankfulness and joy!

This is a question which, although it is asked many times in traditional translations of the New Testament, may actually have been invented by translators who had a Pharisaical obsession with lists of required or forbidden behaviors as a means of sorting others into categories of “in” and “out”. The word which they have rendered “Is it lawful?” has no etymological connection whatever with “law”, whether Jewish (religious) or Roman (civil).
L/S offers for exesti simply “it is allowed” or “it is possible”. Bauer explains that this is “an impersonal verb, which occurs only in the third person singular. Its verb of origin, exeimi, does not occur at all.” The reference is to a thing or action that is culturally permissible or acceptable, and has nothing to do with legality.
Concepts relating to civil or religious law use either nomos, or a compound word containing it, as in I Tim.1:8. The only two occurrences of exesti in the LXX, Ezra 4:14 and Esther 4:2, reference customs of foreign royal courts. It is never used of the Jewish Law, which is uniformly represented by nomos. Please also see studies #37 and 38 dealing with “the Law”.

There is also a host of words used for asking or granting permission of some sort, of which only epitrepo has any overlap with exesti.
Nevertheless, out of 31 New Testament appearances of exesti, all but three – Ac.2:29, 8:37, 21:37, referring only to permission – are traditionally rendered “Is it lawful?” or “It is lawful”, whether the speakers are scribes and Pharisees trying to impose or strengthen restrictions, or Jesus and his followers rising above them.

The incidents about which Jesus’ critics raise questions with exesti do not involve things specifically required or forbidden in the Old Testament Law. The plucking of grain (Mt.12:2, Mk.2:24, Lk.6:2), healing (Mt.12:10, Lk.14:3), the incident with David’s army and the “sacred” temple bread (Mt.12:4, Mk.2:6, Lk.6:4), carrying one’s bedroll (Jn.5:10), or putting “blood money” into the temple treasury (Mt.27:6) were among the thousands of “clarifying” regulations which had accumulated over the centuries, and which purists deemed equally binding.

The question of divorce (Mk.10:2) was mentioned in the Law, but here, it is Jesus who advocates a higher standard.
Similarly, John the Baptist, in his challenge of Herod’s profligacy, does not quote the law, but appeals to human decency!

Roman law is referenced in Jn.18:31, in that the Jewish authorities were not permitted to impose capital punishment, but the protest in Philippi (Ac.16:21) was not legal, but mercenary! Although Paul repeatedly used Roman law, and his Roman citizenship, to his advantage, he only employed exesti once, in Ac.22:25.

The issue of paying tribute to Caesar (Mt.22:17, Mk.12:14, Lk.20:22) created an interesting scene. Clearly, the conflict centered on the principle of tax resistance. The tax in question was the “tribute” which Rome required of all conquered nations. Please see the treatment of that encounter in #15. Jesus’ reply indicates that they are asking the wrong question, and focusing on the wrong issue, making the point that “image”, in this case, implies ownership.
A similar message is intended in Jesus’ parable of the man who hired vineyard workers. Jesus is all about re-defining what is appropriate / permissible.

Exesti appears in Paul’s letters only five times (three references). In II Cor.12:4, he declines to describe (brag about) a supernatural revelation. The others, I Cor.6:12 and 10:23, where he uses the term twice in each, are nearly the same. In both cases, he is addressing the “lawful” dietary requirements advocated by those who were insisting upon the observance of traditional Jewish practice. But notice that he does NOT do this by throwing out either the observance or the people to whom it is important! In chapter 6, he includes it in a discussion of the deliberate renunciation of all forms of physical debauchery as an integral part of one’s transformed life. The reference to food is secondary. It is necessary to include the whole passage (vv.9-19) for accurate understanding. The point is not to pick and choose from a list of forbidden activity, but to shun any behavior that degrades.
Chapter 10 is more specifically focused upon the problem of the availability, in a pagan culture, of any food that has not been a part of idolatrous sacrifice (vv.14-33). Planting, harvesting, and butchering would all have been accompanied by pagan ritual. Here, Paul teaches that one need make an issue of the food’s source only if it threatens or damages the welfare of a brother.

In both instances, the question is not whether behavior is permissible, but whether it is positively helpful (v.23).

For far too long, earnest would-be “believers” have asked (and been encouraged to ask), “Do I have to ….. to be a Christian?” or “will I be lost if I …..?” (fill in the blank with your choice of no-no’s.) Every group, whether it calls itself “conservative” or “liberal”, has had its own defining list, to which, either overtly or implicitly, it requires members to subscribe.

Far better is Jesus’ response in Mk.3:4 and Lk.6:9, when confronted with the ubiquitous “healing on the Sabbath” question. (The same event is less pointedly reported in Mt.12:10-12). He counters with an expanded version of the same question: “Is it permissible on the Sabbath to do good – or to do evil? To save a life, or to destroy [kill]?”
This, in the final analysis, is the real question: because by Kingdom definitions, to neglect or refuse to do good IS to do evil, and to neglect or refuse to save life IS to destroy it.

“Is it lawful?” [acceptable in the ambient society] is no longer a pertinent question – on the Sabbath or any other day.
Is it helpful? Is it life-giving? Is it pleasing to the King?

If so, then in the Kingdom, exesti – it is appropriate.

The use of a seal as a sign of ownership, approval, or authentication is very ancient, and is found across many cultures. The earliest archaeological reference I could find is Chinese, about 3000 years BC. Carved into wood or stone, proprietary symbols were impressed on wax, clay, or later, on paper with ink or dye.
In the Indus Valley, merchants used a seal to identify their trade goods.
In the ancient Middle East, Mesopotamian peoples used an engraved cylinder, and Egyptians a signet ring to make these impressions.
The elite of conquering Greek and Roman forces amassed impressive collections of these seals, thought to be symbolic of their having assumed the power and authority of the former owners.

The understanding of a seal is unusual for its uniformity across such diverse cultures, and its similar employment in modern times, for legal documents, or certification of approval by recognized organizations or authorities.
Unlike many artifacts of culture, the use of a seal, as biblically referenced, is therefore not unique to first century Greek or Roman culture, nor to Hebrew tradition, where it is noticeably rare. In fact, many of the LXX references are to seals used for official edicts by foreign kings (in Esther and Daniel), to people exercising the authority of rulers (Jezebel in I Ki.20), and to specifications for the regalia of the Jewish high priest (Ex.28,35,36). Isaiah (29:11) and Daniel (8:26, 9:24, and 12:4,9) are told to “seal” (conceal) a word of prophecy until a designated time. Deut.32:34 and II Ki.22:4 refer to the securing of a treasury. In the Song of Solomon (4:12, 8:6) it appears to be a term of endearment – perhaps also in Hag.2:24?. A legal deed to land is “sealed” as well (Jer.39:10, 11, 25, 44).

For the verb, sphragizo, L/S lists “to close or enclose with a seal, to authenticate a document, to certify an object after examination, to seal (mark) an article to show that it is pledged, to accredit an envoy, to confirm or set a seal of approval on, to set an end or limit.” Bauer adds “to secure something so as not to be disturbed, to keep secret, to mark as a means of identification of ownership.”
The noun form, sphragis, refers to “a seal or signet, a gem or stone for a ring, a warrant, a mark of ownership, a wound or blow, a governmentally defined and numbered area of land” (L/S), “the certification of a last will and testament, a sign or stamp of approval, that which confirms” (Bauer), with the additional note that some second century writers used sphragis as a synonym for baptism.

Many of these ideas appear in the New Testament uses of the words. Clearly, the “seal/sealing” referenced in Rv.7:2,3,4, is a mark of identification, of God’s “ownership” of his people, in contrast to his opponents mentioned in 9:4. This identification also affords protected status to those who are so identified, as is apparent as well in II Cor.1:22, Eph.1:3, 4:30; and II Tim.2:19, despite the chaos and destruction that may also surround the people concerned.
The seal placed on Jesus’ tomb (Mt.27:66), on the other hand, was intended to keep anyone from meddling with the body. (The authorities mistakenly thought that it would keep him IN – like the seal (Rv.20:3) on the pit where Satan and his minions are confined.)
The seals of the “little book” [scroll] in Rv.5, 6, and 8:1, however, which could only be opened by the eminently qualified Lamb, in addition to securing its wrapper, were obviously to restrict, but not to prohibit, access to its contents. This is reminiscent of the instructions to Isaiah and Daniel mentioned above, to “seal up” particular elements of prophecy until the proper time, which instructions were repeated to John regarding what he had heard in the thunder (Rv.10:4). In contrast, the Revelation ends with the admonition NOT to “seal” [keep secret] the information he had been given, because “the time is near” and these were instructions that folks were going to need for their present circumstances.

The sense of certification of authenticity comes through in Paul’s concern for the safe and responsible delivery of the relief offering to Judea (Rom.15:28), and his reference to the brethren in Corinth as “the seal of my apostleship” (I Cor.9:2) – they themselves constitute the evidence they are seeking that his work is genuine, and that he is the Lord’s accredited envoy.
In a similar vein, John observes that a person who pays attention to Jesus has thereby contributed his own certification [seal] that God is real / true / genuine (Jn.3:33), and in 6:27, that God the Father has granted his personal credential [seal] to his Son, enabling him to bestow on his faithful followers “the food that remains [endures] for eternal life.”
And just as circumcision became for Abraham (Rom.4:11) God’s “seal” [certification] of their relationship, so for faithful followers of Jesus (Eph.1:13 and 4:30), the promised Holy Spirit becomes the mark of God’s ownership, as well as the “down-payment” on their inheritance as his sons.

After a series of warnings about the very real dangers posed by deceptive teachers, Paul reminds his young assistant, Timothy, (II Tim.2:19), “But God’s foundation is still solid! It has this guarantee [seal] – “The Lord knows who belongs to him! And everyone who claims the Lord’s name must stay away from injustice!”

Here, then, in simple summary, is the evidence of God’s “seal” of ownership, approval, and authority:

• the Lord himself knows who belongs to him
• he has identified and empowered them by the gift of his Holy Spirit
• they are recognizable, both within and from outside their company, by their practice of, and devotion to, his justice.

  Beyond that, we need not – and dare not – make further claim or requirement.

I’m not sure what the folks who asked for a study of these terms were expecting. If they wanted something high-flown, mystical, or “super-spiritual”, they asked the wrong person: for these are very plain, down-to-earth words, and flights of fancy are not my specialty.
Although two of the three Greek words, peinao and dipsao, are occasionally used metaphorically of intense desire, craving or longing, the vast majority are purely physical references. The third, limos, without exception, describes scarcity of harvest, or famine related to drought – not a rare occurrence in the ancient (or modern) middle east – and the associated hardship and even starvation (Mt.24:7, Mk.13:8, Lk.4:25, 15:14, 17; 21:11; Ac.7:11, 11:28; Rom.8:35, II Cor.11:27, Rv.6:8, 18:8)
Of the 7 incidents (14 references) where “hunger” and “thirst” appear together, only one (II Cor.11:27) uses limos; and of the rest, only two (Mt.5:6 and Rv.7:16) admit the possibility of metaphorical interpretation.

Peinao, the more frequent word for “hunger”, usually refers to one’s physical need for food. After a lengthy fast, Jesus was hungry (Mt.4:2, Lk.4:2). Pursued by Saul’s army, David and his companions were hungry (Mt.12:3, Mk.2:25, Lk.6:3-11). However, the need described is not always urgent. Jesus and his disciples on the way to Jerusalem (they probably left before breakfast!) were looking for a snack (Mt.21:18, Mk.11:12). Walking through the grain field, the disciples got the “munchies” and helped themselves – which, according to Mosaic law, would have been perfectly ok on any other day.

Paul comments (I Cor.4:11, Phil.4:12) on his own experience of uncertain support during his travels, and reminds folks of their cultural obligation to provide necessities even for enemies (Rom.12:20). On a more domestic note, he criticizes selfish behavior at the “church potluck” (I Cor.11:21, 34).

Jesus’ judgment parable (Mt.25 and Lk.6) is a commendation of folks providing for the needs of others, and a critique of those who did not do so. Usually the issue of urgency is not addressed.
Luke’s version of the Sermon on the Mount (Lk.6:21,25) confines the “beatitude” comment to physical hunger, in contrast to Mt.5:6.
Matthew’s insertion of “for justice [righteousness]” provides a transition to the four instances where peinao may have been used in a more metaphorical sense. These include Lk.1:53, where Mary declares, “He has filled the hungry with good things” – which certainly would have included, but not been confined to food; Jesus’ own statement in Jn.6:35, “He that comes to me shall never hunger” – which in the light of Paul’s experience noted above, probably requires metaphorical interpretation; and his triumphant declaration in Rv.7:16 of the eventual vindication of the martyrs surely reaches beyond the physical realm.
I suspect that it is this latter group of references that Paul had in mind when he wrote his “thank-you note” to the Philippian church for their support. For an accurate understanding of his intent, it is necessary to begin with Phil.4:11, rather than glibly and arrogantly trumpeting the much-misquoted v.13. Expressing gratitude for their concern, Paul also testifies, “I have learned to get along in any condition. I know how to be hard-up and how to handle plenty. I’ve been fully initiated, to be well-fed and to be hungry, to have plenty or to be in need. I have strength for every situation, in the One who enables me.”

Passages involving “thirst” contain a bit more ambiguity. Actually, the only ones referencing purely physical need of water are Rom.12:20, I Cor.4:11, the Mt.25 discussions already cited, and John’s account of Jesus’ word from the cross (19:28). John does not elaborate on the latter statement, as mystically inclined individuals are wont to do. Extreme thirst would not seem strange under the circumstances.
Jesus’ conversation with the Samaritan woman at Jacob’s well (Jn.4:13-15) thoroughly blurs the line between literal and figurative reference, as do his comments in Jn.6:35, 7:37, and Rev.7:16, 21:6, and 22:17. Even the immediate audiences did not always understand, so it’s small wonder if we don’t.
The woman in Samaria initially grasped at the prospect of no longer needing to make her lonely mid-day trek for water (v.15), and only after more conversation realized that this was the promised “Anointed One” with whom she was speaking, even though Jesus had explained that his “water” was different: life-giving, and abundant enough to be shared (13,14).
The focus in Jn.6:32-35 places more emphasis on the provision of bread, and includes “never being thirsty” almost as an afterthought.
Jn.7:37-39 clearly connects the “living water” with the gift of the Holy Spirit,which is also intended to “flow out”, and not to be hoarded for one’s private benefit.

In order to appreciate the metaphorical uses of “hunger” and “thirst”, it is necessary to remember that the setting of all this activity and conversation is in a desert culture. “Thirst” in the desert does not simply imply discomfort. One’s very survival is in question. Like “hunger” in a land where famine mercilessly stalks its victims, “thirst” is also a matter of dire necessity, and culturally, water, like shelter, is not to be denied, even to one’s enemy.

It is this sense of urgency which, I believe, Jesus intends to convey in that first “beatitude” regarding one’s longing for justice/righteousness. Remember (#3) that this is the same word, and not two different ideas! Mt.5:6 is the only reference where any object of the “hunger” or “thirst” is overtly specified. There is probably a reason – do you have any idea what it might be? (I don’t!)

But there is no ambiguity whatever in the Lord’s gracious offer.
In the desert, water is life. In this world and the next, both physically and figuratively, it is his gift to his people.
“They will no longer be hungry or thirsty; neither will the sun fall on them, nor any burning The Lamb in the midst of the throne will shepherd them, and he will be their guide to wells of living water.” (Rv.7:16,17).
“I will give to the thirsty from the spring of living water [water of life].” (Rv.21:6)

“The one who is thirsty must come – whoever wishes – he must take the living water as a gift!” (Rv.22:17).

Thanks be to God!

Although this is another word that does not appear at all in the New Testament, its ubiquity in today’s “Christian” discussions makes it a topic that needs attention. The early church was a case study in the inclusion of “Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female” in the Kingdom, and indeed, into the very family of the King. Interestingly, however, this was (laboriously) accomplished without either succumbing to the immoral excesses of first century Greek and Roman culture, or imposing rigid legal requirements upon participants, and certainly without robbing the language of all pronouns and making a meaningless muddle of its grammar!

We saw in #171 that some folks consider the Magi to have been the first “outsiders” to be included in the Kingdom. However, Jesus mentioned two others in his “inaugural address” (Lk.4:24-27), and personally visited, healed, and preached not only in “Galilee of the Gentiles” (Mt.4:16) – which was bad enough from an orthodox perspective (Jn.1:46) – but also in despised Samaria (Lk.9:52-56, 17:11-16; Jn.4) and made a Samaritan the hero of a major parable (Lk.10:30-37)! He frequently crossed the Sea of Galilee to the Decapolis (Mt.4:25, Mk.7:31), which was Gentile territory (Mk.5:1, Lk.8:26), and Perea (Mt.8:28), where the feeding of pigs clearly establishes a non-Jewish audience, and also traveled to the Idumean cities of Tyre and Sidon (Mk.3:8, Mt.15:21, Mk.7:24) and to Canaanite Caesarea Philippi, which Matthew cites as the location of Peter’s acknowledgment of Jesus as the Son of God, and his transfiguration. Mark lists “Simon the Canaanite” among the Twelve (other writers call him “the Zealot”), and also notes that the “Simon” who was drafted to carry Jesus’ cross was from Cyrene, a Libyan city in North Africa!

Most of the folks listed as visitors to Jerusalem at Pentecost were probably either Diaspora Jews or proselytes, but the geographical range they represented (Ac.2:8-11) was enormous – all the way from Rome, through the province of Asia – now Turkey – (Cappadocia, Pontus, Phrygia, Pamphylia), Parthia (Persia), Media, and Mesopotamia to Egypt, then across to Crete, Cyrene, and the Arabian peninsula! All of these marvelled that they heard the word in their own native dialects!
When Peter, in his first sermon, included “all who are far away” in his invitation (Ac.2:39), he had no clue just how far that might be!

There were Greeks in the group early on, and Greek names appear among the deacons (Ac.6).
Philip had gone to Samaria to preach(Ac.8), and then welcomed an Ethiopian.
Saul the persecutor was headed to Damascus (Syria), and was chasing – and later protected by – believers there (Ac.9).
Peter encountered Aeneas (a Roman name) (Ac.9:33), and was staying with a tanner (9:42) – NO good Jew would associate with someone who handled dead animals!) when Cornelius’ messengers found him (Ac.10).
The congregation at Antioch was begun by brethren from Cyprus and Cyrene who (Ac.11:19-20) “spoke the word to Greeks also.”
All this activity was bound to make waves among those who clung to the traditional ways of old covenant exclusivity. And it did.

The Jerusalem Conference (Ac.15) is a classic example of a faithfully managed confrontation on the issue of “inclusion”. Please refer to the end of chapter 8 of Citizens of the Kingdom for a discussion of this meeting. Notable for our purpose here is the procedure:
(1) hearing the concerns of all sides (v.4)
(2) evaluation by (v.6) both the plural leadership (elders) and (v.12) “the whole assembly.”
(3) reference to Scriptural precedent (vv.15-18)
(4) a conciliatory summary (vv.19-21) , leading to
(5) consensus by “the apostles and elders and the whole church” (v.22).
Notice, please, that neither “side” won. Everybody won!
The strictures of the Old Covenant were not imposed upon Gentile believers, but neither were they “affirmed” and encouraged to continue their former behavior!
Everything related to their “cultural pattern” – idolatry – was to be left behind. All the behaviors listed – idolatry included perverted sexual practices, strangled sacrifices, and consumption of their blood – were flatly forbidden. BUT – the consequent letter was “received with great joy!” (15:31), as was intended.

Repeatedly, Paul and others refer to “turning from idols to serve the living and true God.” Behavior consistent with this “turning” is termed “these necessary things.”
Changed behavior had been the core of the preaching of John the Baptist (see #6).
Every description of the message proclaimed in the early church assumed a radically changed life, whether on the part of Jews or Gentiles.
This is the theme that is missing from so much of the modern “inclusiveness” conversation.,

The epistles, in contrast, are full of “before-and-after” descriptions. Paul characterized his own message (Ac.26:20) as advocating (1) a changed life, (2) turning to God, (3) practicing deeds worthy of a changed life. But he prescribed no new Law!
Notice, for example, that the weeding out of sorcery at Ephesus (Ac.19:19) happened at the local people’s own initiative – it was not externally commanded.
The “wall” between Jew and Gentile was demolished and enmity / hostility destroyed (Eph.2:11-22) “to create in him (Jesus) one new person (2:15)”, not by ecclesiastical decree, but by the power of the risen Lord!

Although the epistles were primarily written to churches with a significant Gentile component, the “before and after” descriptions of transformed lives apply to everyone. Paul describes “the habitual way of life when you lived according to the agenda of this world” (Eph.2:1) simply as having been “dead.” But he notes (v.3) “we all used to conduct our lives that way!” Notice the past tenses! This is also detailed in I Cor.5 and 6, Col.1:21 and most of chapter 3, where he urges that “former behavior be put to death, and a new way of life be “put on” as a garment.
It is important to note that in the same passages frequently (and correctly) quoted in opposition to various forms of sexual immorality, he also equates “greed” with idolatry! (Eph.5:5 and Col.3:5). Neither is a legitimate part of a transformed life! Nor are the other “respectable sins” listed. Deliberate change in ALL the patterns of life is expected. See also I Pet.1:14 and Rom.12:2.  The goal is maximum conformity to Christ, not doing the minimum necessary to “qualify”!

Paul takes care to establish that he is not out to establish a new law in place of the old one. Kingdom people are called to freedom (Gal.2, 4:5-7, 5:13; Col.2:13-23, I Pet.2;16), but not to “do their own thing”. We simply serve a new Master. Romans 3 makes abundantly clear the transformation that is required of everyone – regardless of background or pedigree. The unacceptability of following one’s “natural inclinations” is repeated in Rom.6:15-23, 7:5-6, 8:1-11, and 13:14. All of these are to be left behind, in favor of a new life. (Gal.5:15-26, Eph.4, I Thes.4:3-8, I Pet.1:18 and 4:3-4). Peter’s list of “old ways” to be avoided hits us all!

Admittedly, this teaching is not uniform, either today or in the first century. Hence the multitude of warnings about false teachers and false prophets (I Jn.4:1, Jude 4, II Pet.2:1-3), who can be readily recognized by their behavior. It is interesting that Peter has “luxurious living” at the top of his list of depravity! BEHAVIOR MATTERS! Not as a new legalism, but as a demonstration that life has been transformed! It is the purpose, not the admission ticket or the cause, of our identification with the Kingdom (see #39) (Rom.1:5, Eph2:9-10, Gal.6:8).

The old truism, “what you cultivate is what grows”, is appropriate here.
Such cultivation can only happen in the context of a seeking, sharing brotherhood, where learning new ways of living is assumed. Mutuality is mandatory – not to make excuses, but to avoid them!
II Cor.6:14-18 is usually associated with marriage – and appropriately so – but needs also to apply to the building of the Body of Christ, and pretty much any relationships of serious members.
As our dear (late) brother Vernard Eller observed dryly, “We need to make everyone welcome in our home, to be loved, and to experience how we live – but you don’t immediately let everyone rearrange the furniture and start throwing things out!” I have long considered that probably the best summary of Rom.14, I Cor.5,8,10; and I Thes.5:14-22.

“Let’s concentrate on prodding each other with [toward] love and good deeds” (Heb.10:24), and welcome folks of any and every variety who want to join a mutual effort to become faithful representatives of the Kingdom!

It would be convenient if the words translated “offend” or “offense” could be neatly sorted into categories, as so many others can. In this case, unfortunately, only the context can give us a clue as to whether a particular verb reference is to causing offense, taking offense, or committing some sort of offense; or whether the noun form refers to actual deliberate transgression, ignorant error, or merely a petulant complaint. Consequently, pontificating on this subject is even less acceptable than usual!

The lexicons do not offer a lot of help. Please refer to studies #7 and #141 for the distinction between the two words usually ambiguously rendered “sin”, hamartia and paraptoma, which are both (rarely) translated “offense”.
As for the rest, proskomma (L/S: “offense, obstacle, hindrance; the result of stumbling – bruise or hurt”, to which Bauer and Thayer add “”the opportunity to take offense” and “causing someone to act against his conscience”) appears only six times in the New Testament: Romans 14:20 regarding one’s choice of diet, Rom.9:32-33 and I Pet.2:8 “a stumbling stone”, and warnings in Rom.14:13 and I Cor.8:9 about placing a “stumbling block” in the path of a brother.
Proskope (L/S – “offense taken, antipathy, cause of offense”, to which both other lexicographers agree) occurs only once – II Cor.6:3 – an admonition to “give no offense in anything.”
Aproskopos, a similar noun with a negative prefix, is not listed in any of the three lexicons. It is translated with some variant of “without offense” in its only three appearances: Ac.24:16, I Cor.10:32, and Phil.1:10.
Skandalon, appearing 13 times, is the most interesting etymologically. It is derived from a related word describing “a stick in a trap to which bait is attached, which acts as a trigger.” (L/S – a trap or snare laid for an enemy or a hunted animal; hence, metaphorically, a stumbling block, offense, or scandal.” Bauer picks up the same theme, offering “trap, temptation, enticement; that which gives offense, causes revulsion, arouses opposition or disapproval.” Thayer adds “any person or thing by which someone is entrapped or drawn into error.” Jesus (Mt.16:23,18:7; Lk.17:1), Paul (Rom.9:33, 14:13, 16:17), and John (I Jn.2:10, Rv.2:14) all warn against causing “offenses”. However, we also find recognition that some people will find truth itself, or actual facts, to be offensive (Rom.9:33, 11:9, I Cor.1:23, Gal.5:11).

The verbs are somewhat more easily sorted.
Ptaio – L/S – “to cause to stumble or fall, to trip, to make a false step or blunder”; Bauer – “to be ruined or lost” – only appears five times in the New Testament, used three times by James (2:10 and twice in 3:2) regarding struggles to keep the law, and twice by Paul (Rom.11:11) regarding the failures of Israel. Interestingly, in the LXX, 12 of its 13 uses refer to defeat in battle. The other warns against idolatry.
Proskopto – L/S – “to strike one thing against another, to encounter friction, to offend or take offense” – occurs seven times: in the temptation account, as the devil quotes Psalm 91 (Mt.4:6 and Lk.4:11), twice (Jn.11:9-10) in a purely physical sense (you don’t stumble if you can see where you are going!), and three times (Rom.9:32, 14:21; I Pet.2:8) metaphorically. The Rom.14 reference is to the causing of harm to a brother, but the other two describe the result of disobedience. In the LXX, it primarily describes the chaos of ungodly society.
Skandalizo dominates the verbs as its equivalent does the nouns, used 29x. L/S offers simply “to cause to stumble, to give offense”; Bauer – “to cause to be caught or to fall, to give offense, anger, or shock”; Thayer – to place an impediment, to cause one to judge unfavorably of another, to make indignant.” The verb does not appear in the LXX, where the noun is usually connected with idolatry. It appears in widely varying New Testament contexts, in which it also precipitates very different responses. For example, when the disciples asked Jesus, “Do you know that the Pharisees were offended?” (Mt.15:12) at his pronouncement that one’s dietary choices could not render a person “unclean”, he seems rather unconcerned, replying “Let them go! They are blind guides of the blind!”. But a short time later, (17:27), when questioned about the payment of a tax, he instructed Peter to pay it, “in order that we not offend them.” Clearly, the choice of response to “offense” requires careful discernment.
Jesus also warned against “offending [causing the fall] of one of these little ones who trust me” (Mt.1:6, Mk.9:42, Lk.17:2), but recognized that many would be offended [turned away] in the face of danger or persecution (Mt.13:21, Mk.4:17; Mt.24:10, 26:31-33; Mk.14:27-29). This latter group appears to reference a departure from faithfulness, rather than just “being upset”. I assume that this is also the case with the rather startling (and drastic) instructions in Mt.5:29-30, 18:8-9, and Mk.4:43-47, although there is no way to establish that impression unequivocally. The concept of a trap or snare (noted above) however, tends toward the likelihood of such an implication.

Here, as well as in the epistles (Rom.14:21, I Cor.8:13, II Cor.11:29), it is not always clear whether the warning is against setting a trap or being caught in one. This may be deliberate. The danger of a trap is not dependent upon whether it is intentionally or unintentionally set. Likewise, “giving” or “taking” offense are not always distinguished. In either case, both are to be avoided. We will give more careful attention to this dilemma in the next study.

In his directives to the culturally diverse churches in Rome and Corinth, Paul employs most of these terms, sometimes seemingly at random, so perhaps those letters provide the best summary.
In Rom.5:15-20, he uses paraptoma, and does not appear to distinguish between ignorance and deliberate transgression. He insists that the Law revealed, but did not create transgressions. Rom.11, on the other hand, may be a response to Gentile brethren who were getting a bit cocky about their perception of having replaced unbelieving Jews, with the assertion that the latter group’s “fall” was not necessarily permanent “IF they do not continue in unfaithfulness” (v.23). Do note, however, the conditional nature of that statement! Rom.14, dealing with brethren who have differing convictions about appropriate behavior, focuses on those who “have knowledge”. These are reminded neither to pass judgment on folks who have more scruples, nor to cause harm to their sensitive consciences. Notice, he does NOT say “Anything goes.” Similar advice is given in I Cor.8 and 10, which we will also examine in greater detail in the next study.

A necessary observation here, however, is that while in the LXX, the preponderance of references to any of the “offense” words concern behavior deemed offensive to God (proskomma), idolatry and dishonor (skandalon), deliberate offenses (paraptoma ), and defeats in battle ( ptaio), the New Testament, regardless of the word chosen, is primarily concerned with people’s relationship to each other in the Kingdom, and their response to the uniqueness of Jesus and the life he advocated and exemplified. Which “testament” or “covenant” is the present church living in?
Brother Paul suggests the most relevant principle (I Cor.10:32):
“Do not become a hindrance for either Jews or Greeks, or for God’s church!”

That’s enough to keep us all busy!